On Thursday, March 01, 2012 07:14:20 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
In Section 3:
"There exist cases in which a domain name owner employing [SPF] for
announcing sending practices may want to know when messages are
received via unauthorized routing."
I suggest not using the term "domain name owner" to side-step the
question of domain "ownership".
Would "ADMD" and an informative reference to RFC5598 be more appropriate?
I think it wouldn't. As I read 5598, ADMD is the provider of services. If
you look at the examples in 5598, paragraph 2.3, only one of those, Enterprise
Service Providers, is also the owner of the domain (and the one that controls
policy). For many small domains they use the services of ISPs or ESPs (the
other two examples), but in no way should ISPs or ESPs be determining what
goes into a domain's SPF record for domains they don't own (this has been
tried, BTW, and it was a disaster).
Domain owners is the term used in RFC 4408 (see paragraph 1, introduction).
I'm not sure what question of domain ownership we're trying to side step, but
the term seems to me to be both literally correct and the same terminology
already in use in related documents (also, I might add) a term no one has
suggested should be changed in SPFbis).
Scott K
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf